Spider67
Well-known
Hi,
I am contemplating to buy either a 35/1.4 or a 35/1.7 to a Leica M (probaly M6) body.
How are your experiences with those combinations?
One owner told me that CV lenses misfocus on his Leicas, so that
he had to buy a Bessa, another owner told me that the results on
a Hexar RF were great.
So what should be taken care of?
And if misfocus occurs (maybe because the specimen is defective)
where could I send it?
Best regards
Des
I am contemplating to buy either a 35/1.4 or a 35/1.7 to a Leica M (probaly M6) body.
How are your experiences with those combinations?
One owner told me that CV lenses misfocus on his Leicas, so that
he had to buy a Bessa, another owner told me that the results on
a Hexar RF were great.
So what should be taken care of?
And if misfocus occurs (maybe because the specimen is defective)
where could I send it?
Best regards
Des
totifoto
Well-known
I have the M6 Classic and the only 2 lenses I have for it is the 50mm ZM planar f2 and the CV 35mm Ultron f1.7.
I have never even tried a Leica lens on my camera but both of these lenses I have seem to have somekind of problem at infinity focus. the alignment looks off at 100 fet+ but every image that comes from the camera has the focus spot on. So I think it might be cause I have a third party lenses but I´m not sure.
I really like my M6 Ultron combo.
Looks good
and the photos look good too....
I have never even tried a Leica lens on my camera but both of these lenses I have seem to have somekind of problem at infinity focus. the alignment looks off at 100 fet+ but every image that comes from the camera has the focus spot on. So I think it might be cause I have a third party lenses but I´m not sure.
I really like my M6 Ultron combo.
Looks good
and the photos look good too....
ferider
Veteran
Both are great lenses. The 35/1.4 has some barrel distortion (similar to the 35/1.2), but is faster, and focuses closer. The 35/1.7 is more rectilinear, flares a little easier and is cheaper. The 1.4 is like a pre-asph Summilux also in handling (including focus shift, curvature of field, etc), but with less flare.
The 1.4 feels much better built than the 1.7.
If you go for the 1.4, get the SC version. Having tried several 40 and 35 1.4 Noktons, I always felt that QA was better with the SC versions.
I have used both on the M6 and they work perfectly. If they are off, they will be off on Bessa and Hexar as well. Of course, for the 1.7, you should use a good adapter.
This is a 1.7 photo (on M6):
and this a 1.4 SC (on M6):
Cheers,
Roland.
The 1.4 feels much better built than the 1.7.
If you go for the 1.4, get the SC version. Having tried several 40 and 35 1.4 Noktons, I always felt that QA was better with the SC versions.
I have used both on the M6 and they work perfectly. If they are off, they will be off on Bessa and Hexar as well. Of course, for the 1.7, you should use a good adapter.
This is a 1.7 photo (on M6):
and this a 1.4 SC (on M6):
Cheers,
Roland.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Des,
I've never had a mis-focus with Voigtländer lenses on M-bodies.
I've not tried the 35/1.4 but the 35/1.7 is impressive. The only reason I stopped using is is that I prefer the ergonomics of my pre-aspheric Summilux (finger-grip instead of collar) and of course the extra 1/2 stop comes in handy. Image quality of the 35/1.7 us however superior, especially lack of coma.
Cheers,
R.
I've never had a mis-focus with Voigtländer lenses on M-bodies.
I've not tried the 35/1.4 but the 35/1.7 is impressive. The only reason I stopped using is is that I prefer the ergonomics of my pre-aspheric Summilux (finger-grip instead of collar) and of course the extra 1/2 stop comes in handy. Image quality of the 35/1.7 us however superior, especially lack of coma.
Cheers,
R.
Siluro
Member
Ahhh, the M6 and Ultron: my favourite combo. Also, my only combo. Well in Leica M, anyway 
.
Re. focus issues - mine works well at close range and infinity; and has seen a few years use. The black paint on the Ultron is very nicely brassed - makes me dream of a nice new black paint MP.
I love the character of the Ultron, its one weakness is its tendancy to flare.
.Re. focus issues - mine works well at close range and infinity; and has seen a few years use. The black paint on the Ultron is very nicely brassed - makes me dream of a nice new black paint MP.
I love the character of the Ultron, its one weakness is its tendancy to flare.
roundg
Well-known
I will go for the 35/1.4. The 35/1.7 is a good lens, but looks quite ugly IMHO.
Siluro
Member
Of course, always the primary consideration in any photography related purchase is its sartorial aptitude.
Interesting to read this, Roland. I've handled several of both MC and SC Nokton 35/1.4 lenses, and didn't notice any difference in build quality. Never looked at any 40/1.4's though. Maybe a Nokton 40/1.4 thing?
Here's a shot taken with an Nokton 35/1.4 (MC version) on an M6TTL. I didn't have any problems focusing this combo.
ferider
Veteran
Hi Jon,
I had 4 samples of the 40, and 2 of the 35, and the behavior was consistent. However, I notice RF coupling differences only on my 2 M3s, which due to bigger magnification are more sensitive. The differences are subtle, they are all good
Roland.
I had 4 samples of the 40, and 2 of the 35, and the behavior was consistent. However, I notice RF coupling differences only on my 2 M3s, which due to bigger magnification are more sensitive. The differences are subtle, they are all good
Roland.
Spider67
Well-known
Thanks for the input folks!
Great pictures. The lighthouse makes me gape with awe!
I am tending towards the Ultron as the seller of the 1.4
did not react to my pm.
Great pictures. The lighthouse makes me gape with awe!
I am tending towards the Ultron as the seller of the 1.4
did not react to my pm.
functus
Failed Poet
My pairing is the M6 with the 1.4. I've never tried the 1.7, so have nothing to compare it to. I really like the 1.4; small, easy to handle, and a joy to use wide open.